Vantage point

Friday, April 13, 2012

On Ad Hominem and Relative Morality

A few hours back, @riffraaf whom I follow on twitter and have great regard for, and I had a disagreement over the aftermath of the Rosen-Romney episode. We exchanged a couple of emails. She wrote this post.

This is my response

Very well put. I agree mostly.

Here's where I am coming from: Rosen made a stupid comment. Faux outrage about how Ann Romney is such a victim ensued. (never mind our FLOTUS is bashed in ugly ways every day but that's probably the partisan in me talking, you might say).

Oh, Michelle is definitely bashed in the ugliest ways. It is bizarre to me that someone can make combating obesity into some evil plot!

Some of the people I follow on the right started labeling it as #waronmoms. This was a completely cynical response to left's #waronwomen. Now they wanted to beat the left at their own game. I get it.

Yup, they're just being cynical. But being helped by the left propagating articles like the rude pundit's.

But there was more to #waronwomen (though I personally loathe to use this slogan): Most women I know who are not into partisanship in general (because they're too busy raising kids and handling jobs unlike me :) ) got really riled up with a series of events that hurt women's rights: starting from planned parenthood defunding by Komen to birth control access issues to Sandra fluke (and Rush Limbaugh harassing Fluke for 3 entire days calling her a slut, prostitute, how she should put her porn videos online so he can watch it and so on) to ultra sound bills to new arizona laws infringing rights further.

Agree. That's how my wife (Indian-born American-raised) wife is. She is not as much into politics. She does follow it more than others. She is, like me, a fiscal conservative. But for her, this #waronwomen trumps anything else. Anything related to planned parenthood (which she loves) and birth control gets her riled up. So even if Obama raises taxes by gazillion percent (she hates tax raises even on rich folks), the social aspect of it against women's rights will always make her vote democrat.

So it irritates me to no end that suddenly Risen is somehow equivalent of Limbaugh and all the incivilities shown against women in the last year are equivalent to one insensitive remark made by a Rosen who was a nobody until now (even w/ her hillary support in 2008 and apparently having contributed to Obama campaign in 2008).

I don't think Rosen is equivalent of the much much viler and nastier and just plain-worse-human-being Limbaugh. I am not drawing the equivalence, so I am not going to defend the equivalence.

However, on its own, what Rosen said is definitely insensitive and stupid. And undoubtedly ad hominem. That's all that matters to me, as someone who doesn't count himself on the left or the right when it comes to identifying with movements. By saying what she did, Rosen attacked who Ann Romney, not what Ann or Mitt Romney were saying, making it a classic ad hominem attack.

It's politically damaging I agree. But it's a huge fake outrage and no where near what's really happening to women all over the country (whether w/ healthcare, minimum wages, equal pay, infringing on woman's body, unemployment and so on that affect women in REAL ways).

So I know Obama was doing what any Dem politician would do, but I'm still turned off by this whole latest, what I call Faux outrage.

Granted that some of those outraging are just fake-outraging. Just taking the chance to score points against their political opponents. Granted that many of those outraging on the right have possibly said much worse and more misogynist stuff against women.

But what Rosen said was still stupid and insensitive. And IMO, the Obama campaign by denouncing what Rosen said, is doing not just the politically expedient thing, but the right thing. And elements of the left by digging in and writing posts/articles undermining the worth of Ann Romney's life, are doing the WRONG thing, be it politically or morally.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Australia - Walkin' on Sunshine in Barbados

Every once in a while, test cricket says to other sports "Who's your daddy? I am!" Today is one such time.

Five days ago, if you had said to me, "Australia will win the Barbados test", I'd have responded, yeah, probably...for sure... so?

The beauty of test cricket is its ability to engineer the most bizarre dramas, replete with unexpected reversals, and above all, often making the the audience switch their loyalties.

Five days ago, I was sure that Australia, the side that whitewashed the kinda-mighty Indians, would make mincemeat of West Indies. It didn't even seem like a test series worth following on Cricinfo. But follow it I did. Once you love test cricket, you can't help but follow test cricket, no matter how foregone the conclusion might seem.

Then came the first major twist in the tail. The Windies, marshaled by that old fox Chanderpaul, posted a 400+ score. It's not often that a team loses after scoring 400+ in the first innings. Even better, the Windies bowlers got rid of the Aussie top and middle order fairly soon.

Holy crap! The Windies were set to get a substantial first innings lead. And even win the test! Go West Indies, I thought. Yessss! Schadenfreude is a cool-sounding word, but it truly finds its meaning when the Australian cricket team is losing. Go Windies!

And then test cricket showed why it's everyone's daddy. The Aussies, reverting to a sickening old habit, fought back. Their tail wagged, chipping away at the deficit. Their 10th wicket partnership was going strong, reducing the deficit to a mathematical factoid. Heck, they might even wipe off the deficit.

And then.... huh! Clarke decalred! What!??! He declared, with his 10 wicket pair going strong and the deficit still 43! He declared to, ostensibly and obviously, have enough time to actually win the test.

I have generally disliked the Aussie team. And I don't like Michael Clarke. But this decision won me over. What a declaration! True, his 10th wicket was at the crease, so to posterity, it might not seem like much. But in the context of the match, it was quite a doozy.

Turns out Clarke shocked not just us fans, but the Windies batsmen too. They promptly collapsed in a heap. And suddenly, it seemed like Australia might win this. It wasn't easy. Sure, it seemed easy - 192 in 60-odd overs. But the fading April light meant there was no chance to get more than 50 overs. On a 5th day pitch.

Then came the inevitable sad flashback. India at Dominica last year. The #1 test team in the world. Set 180 in 47 overs. And India decided to play it safe and accepted a draw after a half-hearted attempt. As an Indian, the whitewashes in England and Australia hurt, but didn;t come close to the shame and outrage I felt for the Dominica cop-out.

Surely Clarke with his brave declaration wouldn't pull a Dhoni and play it sickeningly safe? He better not. Aussies better win this.

And that's the weird journey I made in a handful of days. From "Oh, Aussies will definitely win" to "Wow, WI are batting well." to "WI may get the lead! Wow! WI can win this!" to "Oh no! Oh damn! Aussies might save the test" to the final leap "Please please please Australia, win this!"

For that is the beauty of test cricket. It can shake your convictions and loyalties. The action in the middle can make you forget your prejudices and switch sides to support the side playing truly in line with the game's true character. If you've seen Rocky 4, you might remember how the Russian spectators stop cheering for Ivan Drago and start cheering for Rocky, going against all their loyalties and convictions. Well, that was a (rather badly) scripted movie. This is the reality of test cricket.

By the 3rd session on day 5, I found myself, for the first time in well over a decade, cheering for an Australian win. It may seem like an odd, even fickle reversal to cheer the side that I was so dead set against just 5 days ago.

But that's what test cricket does. And did. To me. My heart raced as I groaned at every Australian wicket and cheered every big hit from the Aussies. I kept trying to calculate how long sunshine would last before the umpires closed the proceedings for bad light. And I kept hoping the Aussies would make it.

Aussies - the pre-match favorites, and Windies the underdogs. But test cricket when it is in its element, can make you cheer for the favorites as if they're the underdogs.

Finally, Australia won. They walked on sunshine. And have most likely ushered in another era of self-belief and dominance that will be the bane of other teams in the next decade.